Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. a P Divakara

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2021MFA/3136/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal by an insurance company against a motor accident compensation award. The court reduced the compensation amount from Rs. 1,74,960 to Rs. 1,15,000, holding that the claimants were not dependents but were entitled to loss of estate.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation modified to Rs. 1,15,000; appellant directed to deposit the amount.

The Branch Manager Vs a P Divakara — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.3136/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOPPA BRANCH CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT

¶9

REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE SUMANGALA COMPLEX 2^ND FLOOR LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI.

¶10

… APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI C.SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . A.P. DIVAKARA S/O LATE PUTTANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT KITTANAGADDE SEEBINAKERE POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577432

¶14

2 . A.P. HOOVAPPA S/O LATE PUTTANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶15

¶16

R/AT ATTHI KODIGE SANKADAHOLE POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577432

¶17

3 . NOBERT CASTOLINA S/O RAYMOND CASTOLINA PROP: POPULAR SHOW ROOM CHATRAKERI, THIRTHAHALLI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577432

¶18

4 . SHIVAKUMAR S/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS POPULAR SHOW ROOM R/AT KURUVALLI, THIRTHAHALLI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577432

¶19

5 . CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE PUTTANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT ATTHI KODIGE SANKADAHOLE POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577432

¶20

6 . NAGARAJA S/O LATE PUTTANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT HOSABEEDU BEJJAVALLI POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577432

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(RESPONDENT NOS.R1, R2, R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED. NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2016)

¶23

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.05.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1118/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,74,960/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶25

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.1118/2010 dated 22.05.2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T. at Shivamogga questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶28

The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased Smt. Gowramma, mother of the petitioners died due to the grievous injuries caused by the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the motor bike which took place on 02.06.2009.

¶29

The claimants in the claim petition have contended that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and they lost the earning member of the family.

¶30

¶31

The claimants, in order to substantiate their claim

¶32

examined first claimant as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The respondents have not adduced any evidence, however marked a document as Ex.R1.

¶33

The Tribunal, after both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, awarded compensation of

¶34

Rs.1,74,960/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶35

The Tribunal, while calculating the quantum of

¶36

compensation has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.1,59,960/and also awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- on the head of loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Hence, in all awarded a compensation of Rs.1,74,960/-.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the appellantInsurance Company would vehemently contend that the deceased was aged about 83 years and was not earning any income and the Tribunal has committed an error in calculating

¶38

¶39

the loss of dependency and the claimants are sons, who are aged about 53 years and 33 years and they cannot be termed as dependants. There is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the compensation towards loss of dependency. This Court, in the judgment in the case of A. Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurthy and Others reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3268 has held that if the claimants are not dependents, then they are entitled for loss of estate at the rate of 15% as savings.

¶40

Having taken note of notional income at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, only 15% has to be taken and if the same is taken, the loss of estate comes to Rs.45,000 (750x12x5). The claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads in view of Pranay Sethi’s case. Hence, in all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,15,000/as against Rs.1,74,960/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum.

¶41

¶42

In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to

¶43

pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶46

(ii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal passed in M.V.C.No.1118/2010 dated 22.05.2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T. at Shivamogga is modified granting compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- as against Rs.1,74,960/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶47

(iii) The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within six weeks from today.

¶48

(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal and if there is any excess amount, the Tribunal is directed to refund the same in favour of the Insurance Company.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

The Branch Manager v. a P Divakara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. a P Divakara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri T.B. Nanjunda

Sri Ghouse Peer Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

M/S Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri Ghouse Peer

Smt Shivamma Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Harinath G Vs Sri R. Subramanyam

M/S. National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri Suhail @ Feer Pasha